[FairfieldLife] Re: Question to Shemp

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "authfriend" 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "lurkernomore20002000"
 wrote:
> >
> > Ok, that makes sense.
>
> Lurk, it really doesn't. Almost all of what has been
> added to the deficit under Obama has been to keep the
> economy (which began falling apart largely as a result
> of Bush's policies) from crashing completely.
>
> The big problem is that he didn't add *enough* to the
> deficit to really do the job; all he did was save the
> banks and Wall Street>>

Not true, he gave me and millions of others about $25,000 over the next
10 years with lower mortage rates, and that money is being plowed back
into the economy nationwide, especially in places where there were more
responsible borrowers and less foreclosures. He also created a lot of
jobs and kept many struggling small businesses from going under
The economy is coming back, and only the red states will take the
longest to recover, and nobody cares about them anymore.

OffWorld

[FairfieldLife] Re: Question to Shemp

[ShempMcGurk]

I didn't know Paul Krugman was a participant on this forum.



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000"  
> wrote:
> >
> > Ok, that makes sense.
> 
> Lurk, it really doesn't. Almost all of what has been
> added to the deficit under Obama has been to keep the
> economy (which began falling apart largely as a result
> of Bush's policies) from crashing completely.
> 
> The big problem is that he didn't add *enough* to the
> deficit to really do the job; all he did was save the
> banks and Wall Street, at least for the time being, and
> make a pathetically small inroad on unemployment. He
> hasn't managed to put in place what's needed to keep
> this from happening again, worse, which is more
> regulation.
> 
> > I thought it might be for other reasons.  I agree. I think
> > we're in trouble.
> 
> The problem is long-term deficits. Short-term deficits
> that lift the economy are beneficial. If they work, the
> short-term part gets paid off. Not making that distinction,
> as Shemp does not, is misleading in the extreme.
> 
> Here's a pretty good basic explanation of deficit spending:
> 
> http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/03/20/making-heads-and-tails-of-the-cbo-budget-numbers/
> 
> http://tinyurl.com/yeaq7h8
> 
> This was written a year ago, before we knew what would
> be involved in healthcare reform. Whether the program
> they're now trying to pass will cut costs sufficiently
> is a whole 'nother question (as is whether it'll get
> passed at all).
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Question to Shemp

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000"  
wrote:
>
> Ok, that makes sense.

Lurk, it really doesn't. Almost all of what has been
added to the deficit under Obama has been to keep the
economy (which began falling apart largely as a result
of Bush's policies) from crashing completely.

The big problem is that he didn't add *enough* to the
deficit to really do the job; all he did was save the
banks and Wall Street, at least for the time being, and
make a pathetically small inroad on unemployment. He
hasn't managed to put in place what's needed to keep
this from happening again, worse, which is more
regulation.

> I thought it might be for other reasons.  I agree. I think
> we're in trouble.

The problem is long-term deficits. Short-term deficits
that lift the economy are beneficial. If they work, the
short-term part gets paid off. Not making that distinction,
as Shemp does not, is misleading in the extreme.

Here's a pretty good basic explanation of deficit spending:

http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/03/20/making-heads-and-tails-of-the-cbo-budget-numbers/

http://tinyurl.com/yeaq7h8

This was written a year ago, before we knew what would
be involved in healthcare reform. Whether the program
they're now trying to pass will cut costs sufficiently
is a whole 'nother question (as is whether it'll get
passed at all).

[FairfieldLife] Re: Question to Shemp

[ShempMcGurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "mainstream20016"  
wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000" 
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > Ok, that makes sense.  I thought it might be for other reasons.  I agree. 
> > > I think we're in trouble.  But you don't really see that reflected in the 
> > > markets.  Dollar has regained strength.  Gold is moderating. Of course 
> > > sentiment can change quickly.
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > People knew for years we were in deep shit regarding the mortgage crisis.  
> > Yet the stock market reached unprecedented highs.
> > 
> > Same thing happening here, I believe.
> > 
> 
> What is of real concern of the wealthy is the inevitable return to 
> progressive taxation;  the noise from Republicans about deficit spending is 
> meant to distract from the solution - much higher marginal tax rates on the 
> top earners.   
> 




The problem for Obama is that he has been told by the statisticians and people 
at Treasury that if he raises the tax rates on the rich (i.e., raise the top 
tax brackets) it may make his base happy but it will result in the opposite of 
what he wants and needs: more tax revenue.  He'll get less.

And he also knows that he's got to raise the lower brackets.

So how does he put forward what is essentially a libertarian agenda when he is 
a far left democrat?





> 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000" 
> > > >  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > 
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk" 
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > "As an American I am not so shocked that Obama was given the 
> > > > > > > > Nobel
> > > > > Peace
> > > > > > > > Prize without any accomplishments to his name, but that America
> > > > > gave him the
> > > > > > > > White House based on:
> > > > > > > > the same credentials."
> > > > > 
> > > > > Shemp, take away health care for a moment.  What is it you find to be 
> > > > > so
> > > > > objectionable about Obama's presidency so far?
> > > > >
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Pretty much the same thing I found objectionable about Bush: the 
> > > > deficit.
> > > > 
> > > > Two years ago with about $10 trillion in National Debt, the United 
> > > > States paid about $230 billion in interest on its National Debt.  That 
> > > > represents about $700 per person per year.
> > > > 
> > > > This cost, please bear in mind, was born while interest rates were, as 
> > > > they are now, at historic lows.
> > > > 
> > > > Obama has not only taken Bush's ridiculously high deficits but expanded 
> > > > them to an unbelievable level: $1.6 trillion.
> > > > 
> > > > What will happen when interest rates go up WHICH THEY MUST AT SOME 
> > > > POINT?  When nations such as China stop buying our debt, in order to 
> > > > attract them to buying it, interest rates will have to go up.
> > > > 
> > > > So, for starters, triple the $230 billion figure to $750 billion a year 
> > > > on the $10 trillion.  And that's based on putting interest rates up to 
> > > > a meager 6 or 7 percent interest figure.  Not a hard level to reach.
> > > > 
> > > > Then double the $10 trillion national debt to $20 trillion which we'll 
> > > > reach in about 3 or 4 years. That $750 billion a year in interest will 
> > > > now be $1.5 trillion a year in interest.
> > > > 
> > > > This represents about $4-5,000 a person, per year, just to service the 
> > > > debt.  Factor out the people who don't pay any tax (about 50% of all 
> > > > taxpayers) and you're looking at about $8-10,000 per person per year to 
> > > > service the debt.
> > > > 
> > > > And all that without reducing the debt at all.
> > > > 
> > > > And by this time Barack Obama will be out of office and concentrating 
> > > > on his presidential library oblivious to it all.
> > > > 
> > > > They say that most empires in history ended because of the debt they 
> > > > incurred.  This is probably the end of America as we know it.
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Question to Shemp

[ShempMcGurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "mainstream20016"  
wrote:
>
> Shemp,
> So you advocate lowering income tax rates.   At what rate of 
> income is tax revenue maximized ?   Please don't insult our intelligence by 
> suggesting 0%. 
> 
> -Mainstream  
> 




Let me answer that question in two ways:

1) My ideal federal income tax system would be a flat tax system: 17% flat tax 
rate and no payroll tax.

2)  If our starting point was the current 6 tax brackets (10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 
33%, 35%) I would raise the 10 and 15 brackets to 17% and lower the 25, 28, 33, 
and 35 brackets to 17%.  And, of course, no payroll tax.

...and not to insult your intelligence but there is actually an answer that is 
"0%" and that is what they call the "Fair Tax" which as I understand it says no 
income tax, no payroll tax, and no corporate tax but a consumption tax on all 
goods and services.  Not sure whether I advocate that yet.  And I forget off 
hand what the rate would be.

In addition to its income tax, Canada has a goods and services tax somewhat 
like the above.






> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings  wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > [snip]
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > That's peanuts. Am I right you are therefore against the Bush tax cuts
> > > for the rich because of this scenario?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > No, that is precisely why I am FOR the tax cuts for the HIGHER tax brackets 
> > (which, yes, affect the rich).
> > 
> > Lowering the higher tax brackets INCREASED tax revenue.
> > 
> > The problem was lowing the lower tax brackets which DECREASED tax revenues.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > That would have made this figure
> > > smaller per person,
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > No, the opposite would have happened.  You know not of what you speak.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > and the rich, who are experts at avoiding taxes by
> > > all legal means, would hardly notice any significant difference if those
> > > tax cuts were repealled. Problem solved, debt paid.
> > > 
> > > Bush left us with a national debt of 11.3 trillion dollars, plus he hid
> > > the cost of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.
> > > 
> > > The national debt clock today shows 12.5 trillion, and Obama had the war
> > > costs put on the books properly.
> > > 
> > > So what's your point again Shemp? I don't get it.
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Keep reading the post over and over again until you do.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > OffWorld
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Question to Shemp

[mainstream20016]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000"  
> wrote:
> >
> > Ok, that makes sense.  I thought it might be for other reasons.  I agree. I 
> > think we're in trouble.  But you don't really see that reflected in the 
> > markets.  Dollar has regained strength.  Gold is moderating. Of course 
> > sentiment can change quickly.
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> People knew for years we were in deep shit regarding the mortgage crisis.  
> Yet the stock market reached unprecedented highs.
> 
> Same thing happening here, I believe.
> 

What is of real concern of the wealthy is the inevitable return to progressive 
taxation;  the noise from Republicans about deficit spending is meant to 
distract from the solution - much higher marginal tax rates on the top earners. 
  


> 
> 
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk"  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000" 
> > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk" 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > "As an American I am not so shocked that Obama was given the Nobel
> > > > Peace
> > > > > > > Prize without any accomplishments to his name, but that America
> > > > gave him the
> > > > > > > White House based on:
> > > > > > > the same credentials."
> > > > 
> > > > Shemp, take away health care for a moment.  What is it you find to be so
> > > > objectionable about Obama's presidency so far?
> > > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Pretty much the same thing I found objectionable about Bush: the deficit.
> > > 
> > > Two years ago with about $10 trillion in National Debt, the United States 
> > > paid about $230 billion in interest on its National Debt.  That 
> > > represents about $700 per person per year.
> > > 
> > > This cost, please bear in mind, was born while interest rates were, as 
> > > they are now, at historic lows.
> > > 
> > > Obama has not only taken Bush's ridiculously high deficits but expanded 
> > > them to an unbelievable level: $1.6 trillion.
> > > 
> > > What will happen when interest rates go up WHICH THEY MUST AT SOME POINT? 
> > >  When nations such as China stop buying our debt, in order to attract 
> > > them to buying it, interest rates will have to go up.
> > > 
> > > So, for starters, triple the $230 billion figure to $750 billion a year 
> > > on the $10 trillion.  And that's based on putting interest rates up to a 
> > > meager 6 or 7 percent interest figure.  Not a hard level to reach.
> > > 
> > > Then double the $10 trillion national debt to $20 trillion which we'll 
> > > reach in about 3 or 4 years. That $750 billion a year in interest will 
> > > now be $1.5 trillion a year in interest.
> > > 
> > > This represents about $4-5,000 a person, per year, just to service the 
> > > debt.  Factor out the people who don't pay any tax (about 50% of all 
> > > taxpayers) and you're looking at about $8-10,000 per person per year to 
> > > service the debt.
> > > 
> > > And all that without reducing the debt at all.
> > > 
> > > And by this time Barack Obama will be out of office and concentrating on 
> > > his presidential library oblivious to it all.
> > > 
> > > They say that most empires in history ended because of the debt they 
> > > incurred.  This is probably the end of America as we know it.
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Question to Shemp

[mainstream20016]

Shemp,
So you advocate lowering income tax rates.   At what rate of 
income is tax revenue maximized ?   Please don't insult our intelligence by 
suggesting 0%. 

-Mainstream  



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> [snip]
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > That's peanuts. Am I right you are therefore against the Bush tax cuts
> > for the rich because of this scenario?
> 
> 
> 
> No, that is precisely why I am FOR the tax cuts for the HIGHER tax brackets 
> (which, yes, affect the rich).
> 
> Lowering the higher tax brackets INCREASED tax revenue.
> 
> The problem was lowing the lower tax brackets which DECREASED tax revenues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > That would have made this figure
> > smaller per person,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the opposite would have happened.  You know not of what you speak.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > and the rich, who are experts at avoiding taxes by
> > all legal means, would hardly notice any significant difference if those
> > tax cuts were repealled. Problem solved, debt paid.
> > 
> > Bush left us with a national debt of 11.3 trillion dollars, plus he hid
> > the cost of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.
> > 
> > The national debt clock today shows 12.5 trillion, and Obama had the war
> > costs put on the books properly.
> > 
> > So what's your point again Shemp? I don't get it.
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep reading the post over and over again until you do.
> 
> 
> 
> > OffWorld
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Question to Shemp

[ShempMcGurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000"  
wrote:
>
> Ok, that makes sense.  I thought it might be for other reasons.  I agree. I 
> think we're in trouble.  But you don't really see that reflected in the 
> markets.  Dollar has regained strength.  Gold is moderating. Of course 
> sentiment can change quickly.
> 



People knew for years we were in deep shit regarding the mortgage crisis.  Yet 
the stock market reached unprecedented highs.

Same thing happening here, I believe.




> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000" 
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk" 
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > "As an American I am not so shocked that Obama was given the Nobel
> > > Peace
> > > > > > Prize without any accomplishments to his name, but that America
> > > gave him the
> > > > > > White House based on:
> > > > > > the same credentials."
> > > 
> > > Shemp, take away health care for a moment.  What is it you find to be so
> > > objectionable about Obama's presidency so far?
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > Pretty much the same thing I found objectionable about Bush: the deficit.
> > 
> > Two years ago with about $10 trillion in National Debt, the United States 
> > paid about $230 billion in interest on its National Debt.  That represents 
> > about $700 per person per year.
> > 
> > This cost, please bear in mind, was born while interest rates were, as they 
> > are now, at historic lows.
> > 
> > Obama has not only taken Bush's ridiculously high deficits but expanded 
> > them to an unbelievable level: $1.6 trillion.
> > 
> > What will happen when interest rates go up WHICH THEY MUST AT SOME POINT?  
> > When nations such as China stop buying our debt, in order to attract them 
> > to buying it, interest rates will have to go up.
> > 
> > So, for starters, triple the $230 billion figure to $750 billion a year on 
> > the $10 trillion.  And that's based on putting interest rates up to a 
> > meager 6 or 7 percent interest figure.  Not a hard level to reach.
> > 
> > Then double the $10 trillion national debt to $20 trillion which we'll 
> > reach in about 3 or 4 years. That $750 billion a year in interest will now 
> > be $1.5 trillion a year in interest.
> > 
> > This represents about $4-5,000 a person, per year, just to service the 
> > debt.  Factor out the people who don't pay any tax (about 50% of all 
> > taxpayers) and you're looking at about $8-10,000 per person per year to 
> > service the debt.
> > 
> > And all that without reducing the debt at all.
> > 
> > And by this time Barack Obama will be out of office and concentrating on 
> > his presidential library oblivious to it all.
> > 
> > They say that most empires in history ended because of the debt they 
> > incurred.  This is probably the end of America as we know it.
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Question to Shemp

[ShempMcGurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings  wrote:



[snip]



> 
> That's peanuts. Am I right you are therefore against the Bush tax cuts
> for the rich because of this scenario?



No, that is precisely why I am FOR the tax cuts for the HIGHER tax brackets 
(which, yes, affect the rich).

Lowering the higher tax brackets INCREASED tax revenue.

The problem was lowing the lower tax brackets which DECREASED tax revenues.




> That would have made this figure
> smaller per person,






No, the opposite would have happened.  You know not of what you speak.






> and the rich, who are experts at avoiding taxes by
> all legal means, would hardly notice any significant difference if those
> tax cuts were repealled. Problem solved, debt paid.
> 
> Bush left us with a national debt of 11.3 trillion dollars, plus he hid
> the cost of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.
> 
> The national debt clock today shows 12.5 trillion, and Obama had the war
> costs put on the books properly.
> 
> So what's your point again Shemp? I don't get it.
> 



Keep reading the post over and over again until you do.



> OffWorld
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Question to Shemp

[lurkernomore20002000]

Ok, that makes sense.  I thought it might be for other reasons.  I agree. I 
think we're in trouble.  But you don't really see that reflected in the 
markets.  Dollar has regained strength.  Gold is moderating. Of course 
sentiment can change quickly.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000"  
> wrote:
> >
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk" 
> > wrote:
> > > > > "As an American I am not so shocked that Obama was given the Nobel
> > Peace
> > > > > Prize without any accomplishments to his name, but that America
> > gave him the
> > > > > White House based on:
> > > > > the same credentials."
> > 
> > Shemp, take away health care for a moment.  What is it you find to be so
> > objectionable about Obama's presidency so far?
> >
> 
> 
> Pretty much the same thing I found objectionable about Bush: the deficit.
> 
> Two years ago with about $10 trillion in National Debt, the United States 
> paid about $230 billion in interest on its National Debt.  That represents 
> about $700 per person per year.
> 
> This cost, please bear in mind, was born while interest rates were, as they 
> are now, at historic lows.
> 
> Obama has not only taken Bush's ridiculously high deficits but expanded them 
> to an unbelievable level: $1.6 trillion.
> 
> What will happen when interest rates go up WHICH THEY MUST AT SOME POINT?  
> When nations such as China stop buying our debt, in order to attract them to 
> buying it, interest rates will have to go up.
> 
> So, for starters, triple the $230 billion figure to $750 billion a year on 
> the $10 trillion.  And that's based on putting interest rates up to a meager 
> 6 or 7 percent interest figure.  Not a hard level to reach.
> 
> Then double the $10 trillion national debt to $20 trillion which we'll reach 
> in about 3 or 4 years. That $750 billion a year in interest will now be $1.5 
> trillion a year in interest.
> 
> This represents about $4-5,000 a person, per year, just to service the debt.  
> Factor out the people who don't pay any tax (about 50% of all taxpayers) and 
> you're looking at about $8-10,000 per person per year to service the debt.
> 
> And all that without reducing the debt at all.
> 
> And by this time Barack Obama will be out of office and concentrating on his 
> presidential library oblivious to it all.
> 
> They say that most empires in history ended because of the debt they 
> incurred.  This is probably the end of America as we know it.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Question to Shemp

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk" 
wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000"
steve.sundur@ wrote:
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk" 
> > wrote:
> > > > > "As an American I am not so shocked that Obama was given the
Nobel
> > Peace
> > > > > Prize without any accomplishments to his name, but that
America
> > gave him the
> > > > > White House based on:
> > > > > the same credentials."
> >
> > Shemp, take away health care for a moment. What is it you find to be
so
> > objectionable about Obama's presidency so far?
> >
>
>
> Pretty much the same thing I found objectionable about Bush: the
deficit.
>
> Two years ago with about $10 trillion in National Debt, the United
States paid about $230 billion in interest on its National Debt. That
represents about $700 per person per year.>

That's peanuts. Am I right you are therefore against the Bush tax cuts
for the rich because of this scenario? That would have made this figure
smaller per person, and the rich, who are experts at avoiding taxes by
all legal means, would hardly notice any significant difference if those
tax cuts were repealled. Problem solved, debt paid.

Bush left us with a national debt of 11.3 trillion dollars, plus he hid
the cost of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.

The national debt clock today shows 12.5 trillion, and Obama had the war
costs put on the books properly.

So what's your point again Shemp? I don't get it.

OffWorld

[FairfieldLife] Re: Question to Shemp

[ShempMcGurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000"  
wrote:
>
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk" 
> wrote:
> > > > "As an American I am not so shocked that Obama was given the Nobel
> Peace
> > > > Prize without any accomplishments to his name, but that America
> gave him the
> > > > White House based on:
> > > > the same credentials."
> 
> Shemp, take away health care for a moment.  What is it you find to be so
> objectionable about Obama's presidency so far?
>


Pretty much the same thing I found objectionable about Bush: the deficit.

Two years ago with about $10 trillion in National Debt, the United States paid 
about $230 billion in interest on its National Debt.  That represents about 
$700 per person per year.

This cost, please bear in mind, was born while interest rates were, as they are 
now, at historic lows.

Obama has not only taken Bush's ridiculously high deficits but expanded them to 
an unbelievable level: $1.6 trillion.

What will happen when interest rates go up WHICH THEY MUST AT SOME POINT?  When 
nations such as China stop buying our debt, in order to attract them to buying 
it, interest rates will have to go up.

So, for starters, triple the $230 billion figure to $750 billion a year on the 
$10 trillion.  And that's based on putting interest rates up to a meager 6 or 7 
percent interest figure.  Not a hard level to reach.

Then double the $10 trillion national debt to $20 trillion which we'll reach in 
about 3 or 4 years. That $750 billion a year in interest will now be $1.5 
trillion a year in interest.

This represents about $4-5,000 a person, per year, just to service the debt.  
Factor out the people who don't pay any tax (about 50% of all taxpayers) and 
you're looking at about $8-10,000 per person per year to service the debt.

And all that without reducing the debt at all.

And by this time Barack Obama will be out of office and concentrating on his 
presidential library oblivious to it all.

They say that most empires in history ended because of the debt they incurred.  
This is probably the end of America as we know it.